Building a Synoptic Theory: (2) The Relation of Luke to Matthew

"Building a Synoptic Theory: (2) The Relation of Luke to Matthew" Wenham, pp. 40-87

p. 40 "Luke may be presumed to keep to the sense of his other sources. The differences of sense between the Q-material of Matthew and of Luke make dependence on Q or large-scaled borrowing from Matthew improbable."

Wenham suggests that Luke shows in places that he does not borrow from Mark and change the overall meaning of what he borrows. This suggests that Luke would be similar in his work with other sources.

p. 41 "When comparing Luke with Mark we have seen how consistently he keeps to Mark's sense. Since his aim was to confirm Theophilus in the truth, it follows that he would only have used sources which eh believed to be trustworthy, and that he would have been as faithful to them as he was to Mark."

The problem which then arises is that scholars have suggested a hypothetical "Q" document which served as a source for the evangelists. If both Luke and Matthew borrowed heavily from this document but took its information quite differently from each other, one or both of them misrepresented it. Wenham is going to consider the claims that Luke borrowed from a "Q" but made significant innovations. He'll look at it first in the central section of Luke, then the Sermon on the Level Place, then the rest of Luke.

1. The Central Section (9:51-18:14)
p. 43 "If Q is regarded as a single Greek document roughly coterminous with the material not found in Mark which is common to Matthew and Luke, the Q theory is sufficiently precise for thorough investigation."

THE ARGUMENT FROM ORDER
p. 43 "Where several pericopes, which have no apparent logical or chronological succession, are found in the same order, a natural possible inference is a literary connection. Similarly, if a sequence of material is broken by an omission or by the intrusion of new matter and is then resumed again, a literary connection is a natural explanation."

Yet on p. 44 Wehnam points out passages where the order of events in Matthew and Luke are in a significantly different order. He discusses various views of how the order may have been derived, but observes that all fall short in that they require us to know what a source document may have contained and in what order. I observe that all the theories discussed seem to indicate that authors are slavishly trying to follow or purposely modify an existing pattern, either to protect their presuppositions or to alter an historical account.

THE ARGUMENT FROM WORDING
p. 51 "Redaction critics tend to see the redactionary process as something quite complex, so it may seem naive to try to assess the probability of a literary connection by simply laying parallel passages side by side and asking ourselves whether they look as though one is adapting the text of the other."

The arguments from wording in redaction criticism strike me as being weak. Because there is some similarity in wording, even a slight similarity, a redaction critic often suggests a literary relationship. This is not necessarily the case. In fact, people speaking about similar events tend to use similar language. Wenham introduces a section of comparison of different Greep passages in which he highlights similarities and differences.

p. 54 "In the case of Mark (as we have seen) Luke almost invariably keeps to his sense, but this (as we shall now show) is not so in the Q-material. Even in the ten fairly long passages (pp. 55-66 below) where there is general agreement in wording and sense the relation does not appear to be a literary one; in the nine examples (pp. 67-76) where the sense is markedly different a literary connection is improbable in the extreme."

p. 59 "If to some the wording seems to close for separate utterances retained in separate minds over several years, it needs to be remembered that in addition to a tendency towards divergence there could also have been a tendency towards assimilation when similar sayings were taught in the church."

Wenham is suggesting, then, that different authors may use different vocabulary and style to discuss the same matters, particularly if they are depending not on a source as a literary quote-book, but if they are depending rather on the events detailed in a source book. There is also a tendency to start using the same language to discuss matters when the matters are discussed within the context of an assembly such as a church body. One person uses a particularly apt manner of expression and others follow suit. This is not strictly a literary dependence.

p. 63 "The Beelzebul controversy (11:14-32) has perhaps the most plausible claim to a literary connection. It has nineteen verses which run parallel to the twenty-four verses of Matthew 12:22-45. Not only are several of the sayings of Jesus found in identical or nearly identical form, but there is a sustained similarity of order throughout much of the passage. In addition the setting, including the reactions of Jesus and of the crowds, is similar."


Wenham sums up his argument briefly on p. 66 "Looking at the Q-material studied thus far, it does not look as though the Luke who followed Mark so closely would have constructed passages out of Matthew in this way. Nor does it look as though the two evangelists followed a single common Q-source, since it would have entailed (particularly as we shall see, in the nine most divergent passages) one or other or both of them treating its different parts in too inconsistent a way."

He then goes on to bring out nine passages with sense differences between Luke and Matthew.

THE ORIGIN OF LUKE'S CENTRAL SECTION
pp. 76-77 "If the Q-material of the Central Section does not come from the one or more Qs or from Matthew, what is the alternative? The simplest answer is the most revolutionary. The answer could be that these Q-passages have no common literary, or even oral, origin, but derive from different sayings of Jesus."

The material can be explained easily with five arguments Wenham explains on pp. 77-79.
1. It fits the claims of the narrative.
2. It fits Luke's claims for his sources.
3. It would explain the extraordinary interest in the mission of the seventy.
4. It would explain the order of the material.
5. It would account for the verbal likenesses and unlikenesses.

Wenham goes on to discuss the Great Sermon, Luke 6:20-49, which has a strong parallel in the Sermon on the Mount. Though the parallels are strong, Wenham does not think there is a clear literary dependence, because there are significant differences which would seem very odd in a literary derivation.

He goes on to talk about the remainder of Luke's Gospel, addressing five Q-passages in the rest of the book. Because the passages do not seem to line up with their parallels very well, we are faced with problems from a standpoint of literary dependence. We would expect that two authors who are not trying to be misleading would report their sources in approximately the same manner. Yet Luke and Matthew seem to report this alleged source very differently from one another.

p. 83 "This brings us back to the question of method in redaction criticism. Thus far we have simply laid the Q-passages side by side and asked the question: Does the similarity necessitate a belief that there is a direct literary connection between them? And the answer (except in rare cases) seems plainly to be, No. But of course moern writers do not conceive the relationship in this simplistic fashion. We have quoted from Fitzmyer, who presents his theory of Luke's composition with elegant sophistication. We saw in his treatment of the Coming Crisis in Luke 12:49-59 on p. 69 a case in point. He found there in succession: L, L heavily modified, Q, redaction, Q, a passage where six words out of forty-seven agree with Matthew - partly Lukan composition, partly L, Lukan composition, Q. This is all right, if one is assured a) that the relationship is primarily literary, b) that Luke was in the habit of altering the substance of his sources, c) that Q actually existed, d) that L source(s) actually existed, e) that Luke (whether by inspiration or not) created a good deal of his material de novo. But all these propositions are debatable and they beg the very question that we are investigating."

With all this data, Wenham asks a probing question on p. it. "But might it not be that Luke has kept to the sense of Q and that Matthew has done nearly all the changing?" What are other options?

p. 86 "just as Luke would not have altered a Q of the Matthean type in the way supposed, neither would Matthew have done so to one of the Lukan type. That both Matthew and Luke would have made major changes sufficient to account for the divergences between the two known versions of the Q- material is of precisely equal improbability" - we simply don't have adequate data to assess the way hypothetical sources were used.

p. 87 "Finally, we must consider the possibility that Luke got his Q- material direct from Matthew."

p. 87 "The picture which is emerging would suggest that Luke had two documents which are known to us which he used quite differently but equally scrupulously. He took Mark as his guide to the basic framework of the gospel, following the order and main substance of Mark's pericopes in the first third and final third of his book, though seldom following his actual wording. Matthew he seems to have used in a minor way to provide some supplementary information in the early part of the book."

However we stack it, it seems to me that forming a theory of literary dependence is going to be very difficult and fraught with weaknesses. It does not seem a way that authors write, which to me throws up a very substantial difficulty.